[CONTENT REMOVED FROM ORIGINAL THREAD PLACED HERE] Legal debate thread for the ongoing Wyndham resort closure actions...

[Arimaas]

The fact remains, unless the actions taken benefit Wyndham, as an owner more than other owners, ( something we have no reports of) there is nothing remotely illegal about what is happening.Just because Wyndham owns more than everyone else does not make it illegal for them to vote their best interest, as long as all owners receive the same proportional benefit. When you as an owner vote, you vote for what you think is best for you. Wyndham gate the same right. So without proof of special treatment, no court is going to consider Wyndham and the HOA as one and the same. Wyndham has zero obligation to consider the effects of its proposals on other owners The HOA is obligated to do whatever the membership legally votes it to do. As I have stated before just because you don't like the current actions does not a legitimate cause for a lawsuit create. That said I am none to pleased with the closing of a bunch of East Coast resorts, but I don't have the votes to stop it legally.

I'm glad to hold this mock trial again, but if it starts to get unwieldy, I'm going to bow out again. Shame on me for opening it back up, but I do find it interesting.

I disagree with you, because I feel that these actions benefit Wyndham in that they are no longer carrying the MFs for each unit they own and can't sell. Selling the resorts gets bad debt off their books. The only way to do that was to stack the HOA votes and vote for this Chapter 11 process. If I was going to go through with a claim, here is my legal strategy. Wyndham would obviously move for summary judgement, but who knows, maybe it proceeds, maybe it doesn't.

Argue first, that Wyndahm and the HOA are acting in concert, and that Wyndham Corporation knows what the outcome of the HOA's actions will be based on the fact that they stacked the HOA, and had a plan to do so over the course of years, therefore, the HOA's actions were in fact Wyndhams, and Wyndham controlled the timing and the outcome.

Second, Wyndham knew what was going to happen, however, kept all regular owners in the dark and let them carry on like business as usual. Rservations were made that are not going to be honored, whether at resorts that were known to be closing, or by using points that Wyndham had reason to believe may disappear. Damages may be small, relatively. Non refundable airfare for a family of four. Have to find similar lodging at a more expensive price. Say maybe $2000-2500 per impacted owner. Maybe less, some people drive. Either way, not really much money.

Now, if you find 20 people that this has happened to, you may get this certified as a class. Again, not really much money, and no lawyer in their right mind would take this for a 1/3 of $40,000. Even if you say 1000 people were impacted and didn't take the CWA swap (because that's only when this is an issue right), you're looking at damages of what, $2M? So probably not worth a class action lawyers time,

Now you can argue, in the defense that the CWA swap is fair, and it's on the owner for not taking it, and all the other things we already discussed, but I still say there is a valid cause of action to let this proceed and withstand a summary judgement motion and proceed to a trial You may disagree, and that's fine. That's why there are appellate courts and legal opinions, because, as I said above, even great legal minds disagree.

 

[comicbookman]

I'm glad to hold this mock trial again, but if it starts to get unwieldy, I'm going to bow out again. Shame on me for opening it back up, but I do find it interesting.

I disagree with you, because I feel that these actions benefit Wyndham in that they are no longer carrying the MFs for each unit they own and can't sell. Selling the resorts gets bad debt off their books. The only way to do that was to stack the HOA votes and vote for this Chapter 11 process. If I was going to go through with a claim, here is my legal strategy. Wyndham would obviously move for summary judgement, but who knows, maybe it proceeds, maybe it doesn't.

Argue first, that Wyndahm and the HOA are acting in concert, and that Wyndham Corporation knows what the outcome of the HOA's actions will be based on the fact that they stacked the HOA, and had a plan to do so over the course of years, therefore, the HOA's actions were in fact Wyndhams, and Wyndham controlled the timing and the outcome.

Second, Wyndham knew what was going to happen, however, kept all regular owners in the dark and let them carry on like business as usual. Rservations were made that are not going to be honored, whether at resorts that were known to be closing, or by using points that Wyndham had reason to believe may disappear. Damages may be small, relatively. Non refundable airfare for a family of four. Have to find similar lodging at a more expensive price. Say maybe $2000-2500 per impacted owner. Maybe less, some people drive. Either way, not really much money.

Now, if you find 20 people that this has happened to, you may get this certified as a class. Again, not really much money, and no lawyer in their right mind would take this for a 1/3 of $40,000. Even if you say 1000 people were impacted and didn't take the CWA swap (because that's only when this is an issue right), you're looking at damages of what, $2M? So probably not worth a class action lawyers time,

Now you can argue, in the defense that the CWA swap is fair, and it's on the owner for not taking it, and all the other things we already discussed, but I still say there is a valid cause of action to let this proceed and withstand a summary judgement motion and proceed to a trial You may disagree, and that's fine. That's why there are appellate courts and legal opinions, because, as I said above, even great legal minds disagree.

Wyndham gets nothing from the closure that other owners are not getting. That demolishes your argument. All of the benefits you site for Wyndham are available to other owners. Wyndham not informing other owners of their plans is not a requirement of Wyndham ownership any more than you have to tell Wyndham if your plans for your ownership in advance Wyndham obligations as manager are separate and defined by contracts you as an owner are not party to. ( When I say manager, I mean manager of the points and reservations, not resort operations) Their obligation to stop taking reservations etc. are most likely clearly defined by these management contracts and to lesser extent various laws. You still haven't made any case for why Wyndham has a greater duty, and less rights, than other owners. I mean f you planned to sell your ownership are you obligated to tell Wyndham and the other owners as soon as you decide? Of course not, but that is what you claim Wyndham must do. The fact that the HOA is doing what the members have legally ( I am assuming the votes were legal) voted it to do is in no way actionable.the fact that the entity that controls a majority of the votes agrees or has proposed this course of action in no way taints the actions. You argue Wyndham exercising it's legal rights is somehow improper.
The CWA swap is a separate thing. It absolutely is Wyndham acting solely in their best interest. It is a pr move and an inventory reduction move. It will benefit some owners, but that is the or part. It is not remotely required by what is happening at the resorts.
As I have also said before, I would have come up with something more to mollify owners who lose reservations, also for pr, not because they are in any way obligated to.
Your argument still boils down to you don't like the result, so there must be something we can sue about.

 

[CO skier]

If I was going to go through with a claim, here is my legal strategy. Wyndham would obviously move for summary judgement, but who knows, maybe it proceeds, maybe it doesn't.

You should examine the KBV lawsuit by whole owners. Specific details differ, but it rhymes. Wyndham sought and received summary judgement.

The case proceeds without Wyndham as a defendant.

 

[Arimaas]

Wyndham gets nothing from the closure that other owners are not getting. That demolishes your argument. All of the benefits you site for Wyndham are available to other owners. Wyndham not informing other owners of their plans is not a requirement of Wyndham ownership any more than you have to tell Wyndham if your plans for your ownership in advance Wyndham obligations as manager are separate and defined by contracts you as an owner are not party to. ( When I say manager, I mean manager of the points and reservations, not resort operations) Their obligation to stop taking reservations etc. are most likely clearly defined by these management contracts and to lesser extent various laws. You still haven't made any case for why Wyndham has a greater duty, and less rights, than other owners. I mean f you planned to sell your ownership are you obligated to tell Wyndham and the other owners as soon as you decide? Of course not, but that is what you claim Wyndham must do. The fact that the HOA is doing what the members have legally ( I am assuming the votes were legal) voted it to do is in no way actionable.the fact that the entity that controls a majority of the votes agrees or has proposed this course of action in no way taints the actions. You argue Wyndham exercising it's legal rights is somehow improper.
The CWA swap is a separate thing. It absolutely is Wyndham acting solely in their best interest. It is a pr move and an inventory reduction move. It will benefit some owners, but that is the or part. It is not remotely required by what is happening at the resorts.
As I have also said before, I would have come up with something more to mollify owners who lose reservations, also for pr, not because they are in any way obligated to.
Your argument still boils down to you don't like the result, so there must be something we can sue about.

My theory is based on a contractual obligation and a breech of that contract to provide lodging once you book a reservation, not a fraud or unlawful enrichment.

Again, since this is all abstract, I haven't read the contract and there may be language in there about club closing, losing your points, etc. Any of that would diminish my argument, I think. Wyndham not receiving a benefit versus that of a regular person, shouldn't impact the argument. Maybe point one where I need to show Wyndahm and the HOA acted in concert, but I still think, unless specifically something in the contract about this situation, that there is a valid claim here.

Either way, let's agree to disagree. I don't think either of us are swaying the other.

 

[schreff]

I've debated this ad nauseum here on this thread. I too would call the HOA's actions, Wyndham's action. Although I admit that I conflated the two when I wrote my posts here and would call the HOA, Wyndham and visa versa, instead of being specific as to who the actor was, and I just merged them together as a single actor - as a lawyer would likely try to do.

If you read back I had, what I thought was a coherent valid claim of action here. I also agree with you that a lawyer would likely show exactly what you said - that Wyndham, knew what it was doing and stacked the HOA to vote the way it wanted the HOA to vote. Wyndham controlled the HOA membership by taking deed backs and not selling new ownership. Wyndham was then able to vote the HOA however it wanted in its best corporate interests. The HOA's actions would likely be seen as Wyndahm's actions. The question really is, however, is a lawyer really going to take a case against Wynhdam in this action? What's the real damages and is there any money in it for him or her.

So while others don't agree with you, I do. I'm sure I'll get some snarky remarks for giving my opinion and agreeing with you, but, you know, when I read many Supreme Court decisions while I studied for two state bars, they all seemed to have a concurring and dissenting opinion, meaning, many great legal minds can disagree on points of law.

It appears that some are either blinded by the Wyndham light or have other conflicted motives. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that some posts are off the wall with lies, lunacy and bloviation. It has turned into a waste of my time. The truth will eventually win with or without me.

Wyndham has done us wrong in many ways although we have had some good vacation memories too. IMHO, Wyndham is on the decline which makes us sad. All this crap by those who say it isn't Wyndham's fault are wrong. The have the votes to control the HOAs, they manage the resorts, and they sell very expensive deeds at these resorts all the time. According to some Wyndham clones, they are not at fault for these resorts closing which is debatable. I do know that it is Wyndham's fault fornot keeping their owners informed of their big fat corporation plans. It isn't a coincidence that 14 resorts are claiming bankrupcy at one time without Wyndham's planning and knowledge.

" The truth will ultimately prevail where there is pain to bring it to light ", George Washington

 

[schreff]

The fact remains, unless the actions taken benefit Wyndham, as an owner more than other owners, ( something we have no reports of) there is nothing remotely illegal about what is happening.Just because Wyndham owns more than everyone else does not make it illegal for them to vote their best interest, as long as all owners receive the same proportional benefit. When you as an owner vote, you vote for what you think is best for you. Wyndham gate the same right. So without proof of special treatment, no court is going to consider Wyndham and the HOA as one and the same. Wyndham has zero obligation to consider the effects of its proposals on other owners The HOA is obligated to do whatever the membership legally votes it to do. As I have stated before just because you don't like the current actions does not a legitimate cause for a lawsuit create. That said I am none to pleased with the closing of a bunch of East Coast resorts, but I don't have the votes to stop it legally.

Agree that Wyndham has the right to protect their financial interest first but the HOAs' BODs has a fiduciary responsibility that trumps this...
Here's Google's Ai
Core fiduciary duties of a timeshare BOD
The responsibility to act without conflict and for the whole ownership is defined by several key legal duties:

• Duty of Loyalty: This is the direct obligation to act in the best interests of the association as a whole, not for any individual owner or the board member's own gain. Board members must give their undivided allegiance to the association when making decisions.
• Duty of Care: Board members are required to handle the association's business with the same level of care and diligence that an "ordinarily prudent person" would use under similar circumstances. This includes being informed and actively participating in meetings.
• Duty of Good Faith: Board members must make decisions with integrity and impartiality, prioritizing the timeshare's collective interests.
• Duty of Obedience: The board must act in accordance with the timeshare's governing documents (e.g., bylaws) and all applicable laws and regulations.

Doesn't it seem strange that 14 or more HOA BODs would act exactly or very close to the same in declaring bankruptcy????
In ending, as I have always said, I believe TUG has a moral responsibility to have those members and non member alike divulge any conflicts that posters have.
VALE

 

[HitchHiker71]

Agree that Wyndham has the right to protect their financial interest first but the HOAs' BODs has a fiduciary responsibility that trumps this...
Here's Google's Ai
Core fiduciary duties of a timeshare BOD
The responsibility to act without conflict and for the whole ownership is defined by several key legal duties:

• Duty of Loyalty: This is the direct obligation to act in the best interests of the association as a whole, not for any individual owner or the board member's own gain. Board members must give their undivided allegiance to the association when making decisions.
• Duty of Care: Board members are required to handle the association's business with the same level of care and diligence that an "ordinarily prudent person" would use under similar circumstances. This includes being informed and actively participating in meetings.
• Duty of Good Faith: Board members must make decisions with integrity and impartiality, prioritizing the timeshare's collective interests.
• Duty of Obedience: The board must act in accordance with the timeshare's governing documents (e.g., bylaws) and all applicable laws and regulations.

Doesn't it seem strange that 14 or more HOA BODs would act exactly or very close to the same in declaring bankruptcy????

Given all impacted resorts are being represented by the same law firm, K&L Gates, and the same real estate firm, Hilco, would it not seem strange if the HOA BODs would not act similarly? It has been repeatedly documented over the past two months that the HOA BODs are using a templated approach to these actions that was developed by K&L Gates and Hilco, that have used this same approach successfully for other companies. While it's nascent within Wyndham and perhaps timesharing in general, it's not nascent for the representative firms.

OFFICIAL MODERATOR POST

In ending, as I have always said, I believe TUG has a moral responsibility to have those members and non member alike divulge any conflicts that posters have.
VALE

It is NOT acceptable to call into question people's motives simply because they take a different viewpoint and back up that viewpoint with salient arguments. Moving forward, these types of accusations will be considered violation of moderator rules in this forum. I've known most of these forum members for quite a long time now, and none of the posters, myself included, work for Wyndham or any of the third parties involved in these actions to the best of my understanding. I won't place a public warning on this post, however any/all posts that contain unfounded accusations of this nature will result in public warnings and further moderator actions.

 

[dioxide45]

Do we think that each HOA went out and independently found their own law firm and real estate agent? Of course not. Wyndham found these firms and brought them to the HOAs. Nothing necessarily wrong with that but Wyndham as the majority owner of these resorts is behind the steps being taken. They are even the association members with "The requisite number of members of the association has requested the board of directors to call a special meeting..."

We can say the association and Wydnahm are separate entities all day long, and legally they are, but the actions taken are 100% by Wyndham using their controlling interest. This could be a learning lesson that, for owners, point systems may not be the best system. They ceed control over to the developers.

I don't necessarily begrudge Wyndham for taking these actions given the situation many of these properties are in. A healthier company should be better situated to serve its owners better. We will just have to see if that holds true in this situation going forward.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Do we think that each HOA went out and independently found their own law firm and real estate agent? Of course not. Wyndham found these firms and brought them to the HOAs. Nothing necessarily wrong with that but Wyndham as the majority owner of these resorts is behind the steps being taken. They are even the association members with "The requisite number of members of the association has requested the board of directors to call a special meeting..."

We can say the association and Wydnahm are separate entities all day long, and legally they are, but the actions taken are 100% by Wyndham using their controlling interest. This could be a learning lesson that, for owners, point systems may not be the best system. They ceed control over to the developers.

I don't necessarily begrudge Wyndham for taking these actions given the situation many of these properties are in. A healthier company should be better situates to serve its owners better. We will just have to see if that holds true in this situation going forward.

The fact is that Wyndham can and should be credited for serving the ownership base with respect to the impacted resorts. Most of the impacted HOAs have a legal agreement with the developer/manager, in this case Wyndham, that allows them to take back bad debt-oriented inventory that the HOA owns due to foreclosures and other scenarios (such as owners passing away) and then using that inventory as Wyndham sees fit, which is typically to either rent or resell that inventory anew. HOAs have openly stated, in some cases, that were it not for Wyndham, these HOAs would have been bankrupt many years ago due to foreclosures and unsaleable inventory on their books that would have significantly increased MFs on existing paying members (bad debts) and accelerated insolvency.

With the above in mind, the fact is that Wyndham has been willingly floating these resorts for many years now. Put another way, the only reason these resort HOAs have stayed solvent for the past several years is because the developer/manager, meaning Wyndham, has willfully taken on a plethora of bad debts, to keep these HOAs financially solvent and to keep these resorts open for owners. How is that a bad thing? Wasn't this a good thing in point of fact?

So, this year, due to an established pattern heading in the wrong direction, Wyndham made a strategic decision to no longer bail out these resorts. The argument that Wyndham should be better situated to serve its owners better, to me at least, is a false argument. Wyndham has been serving the best interests of these owners for years, by taking on bad debts, and attempting to monetize those bad debts via rentals and reselling the deeds. Obviously, despite the best efforts of the developer/manager, monetization hasn't been successful. We know this simply because if it was successful, Wyndham, or any business really, wouldn't be exiting these resort locations.

Does any of the above mean that I'm necessarily personally happy about losing resorts that are within driving distance of myself and my family? Nope, not in the least. It means using my ownership for weekend getaways will become less likely - or less efficient/more effort required - with a loss in the variety of resorts where we can get away easily over a weekend (mountain vs beach vs city). It's not great for me personally, but I'm also able to look at the big picture, it's not about me. It's about what is best for the business and the shareholders, meaning Wyndham is a publicly held company with a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders first and foremost. I'd also state I'm not very happy with the conservative risk-based decisions made with regard to customer comms. I do recognize the reasoning, but I'd also likely have chosen to take on a bit more risk and to have communicated more information starting back in July, but that's me. I've always had a tendency to over-share and over-communicate whenever organizational change is being introduced - as I've always held the viewpoint that people assume the worst, and leaving a comms vacuum too often results in worse outcomes than otherwise could have transpired where comms more proactive and inclusive from the outset.

 

[dioxide45]

The argument that Wyndham should be better situated to serve its owners better, to me at least, is a false argument.

I think you somehow misunderstood what I was saying. You assume everything I am posting is an argument and in some way trying to begrudge Wyndham. It wasn't. By unloading these dead weeks and resorts, it should make for a stronger company long term.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I think you somehow misunderstood what I was saying. You assume everything I am posting is an argument and in some way trying to begrudge Wyndham. It wasn't. By unloading these dead weeks and resorts, it should make for a stronger company long term.

Then we're in agreement.

 

[e.bram]

Wyndham is located in Parsippany NJ. I live in NJ so i can personally respond without a lawyer!

 

[paxsarah]

Wyndham is located in Parsippany NJ. I live in NJ so i can personally respond without a lawyer!

Wrong Wyndham. You'll need to go visit Travel + Leisure in Orlando.

 

[e.bram]

Wrong Wyndham. You'll need to go visit Travel + Leisure in Orlando.

I could make motions in nj courts!

 

[CO skier]

I could make motions in nj courts!

Let us know how that goes.

 

[schreff]

All the legal suppositions and tidbits of fact are interesting but they only succeed in making us think and don't solve a thing. Let the legal experts fight these battles. I am sure will occur. The bottom decision making line is either accept the CWA offer, wait until a sale occurs and you get the crumbs, or file/join a legal action against the HOA and/or Wyndham. Another far fetched scenario is if the FTC or another federal or state government investigating the whole process.

 

[Rolltydr]

All the legal suppositions and tidbits of fact are interesting but they only succeed in making us think and don't solve a thing. Let the legal experts fight these battles. I am sure will occur. The bottom decision making line is either accept the CWA offer, wait until a sale occurs and you get the crumbs, or file/join a legal action against the HOA and/or Wyndham. Another far fetched scenario is if the FTC or another federal or state government investigating the whole process.

 

[schreff]

Again I cannot find a fact in the above post except personal attack thus it should be removed. Here is substantiation to my previous post.
Google AI info
When a timeshare developer controls the Homeowners Association (HOA) and then files for bankruptcy, they can potentially violate laws relating to fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and corporate governance. If the developer mismanages the HOA's finances to benefit themselves before the bankruptcy, this is often a core issue.
Fraudulent misrepresentation
If the developer made false promises to timeshare owners while concealing their financial problems, they may be guilty of fraud. This is a common claim in lawsuits against developers who operate fraudulent schemes.

• Deceptive sales practices: Lying to owners about the value of their investment, the ability to resell, or the financial health of the resort can violate state and federal consumer protection laws. For instance, a timeshare developer was sentenced to prison for a resale scam that defrauded thousands of people out of millions of dollars.
• Concealment of financial issues: Failing to disclose that the company was in financial distress before continuing to collect fees or sell new timeshares could constitute fraud.

Breach of fiduciary duty
A fiduciary duty is a legal obligation to act in another party's best interest. By controlling the HOA, the developer's executives have a fiduciary duty to the timeshare owners. Breaches can include:

• Mismanaging HOA funds: Using HOA fees for the developer's business expenses or to pay off the developer's own debts is a significant breach. Owners' assessments are intended for the maintenance and management of the community, not to prop up the parent company.
• Lacking financial oversight: Ignoring poor financial planning or neglecting to fund reserve accounts for future repairs while controlling the HOA violates the duty to protect the association's assets.
• Conflicts of interest: As board members of the HOA, developer-controlled executives have a conflict of interest when prioritizing the developer's financial health over the timeshare owners' interests.

Violations of state laws governing HOAs
State laws dictate the proper governance and operation of an HOA. Developer-controlled boards can easily violate these laws.

• Improper turnover: When the developer retains control of the board and then declares bankruptcy, they may never have properly relinquished control to the owners, which is a violation of the HOA's bylaws and state law.
• Failure to provide records: State laws, such as California's Davis-Stirling Act, often require HOAs to provide financial records and meeting minutes upon request. Developer-controlled boards may ignore these requests.
• Unapproved contracts: A developer-controlled board may enter into contracts with the parent company on unfavorable terms for the HOA, which may be a violation of self-dealing prohibitions.

Bankruptcy law violations
While bankruptcy is a legal process, it can be abused for fraudulent purposes.

• Fraudulent transfers: A developer might illegally transfer assets out of the company to hide them from creditors or enrich themselves before filing for bankruptcy. This is known as a fraudulent conveyance and can be reversed by a bankruptcy court.
• Preferential treatment of creditors: A timeshare developer might unfairly pay off certain creditors (like their own affiliated companies) shortly before filing for bankruptcy, a violation known as a preferential transfer.
• Chapter 7 abuse: A timeshare business filing for a Chapter 7 liquidation without attempting to reorganize, especially if it was a scam, can be investigated by a bankruptcy judge. The filing itself may be a ploy to evade liability, which can lead to the dismissal of the case.

Please note I am not making accusations or allegations that any of this is related to or has occurred during any of these HOAs/Wyndham actions. However, I do know that what we were promised by Fairfield/Wyndham sales and what we ultimately received over that past 35 years did not come to fruition,

 

[Arimaas]

Again I cannot find a fact in the above post except personal attack thus it should be removed. Here is substantiation for my previous post.
Google AI info
When a timeshare developer controls the Homeowners Association (HOA) and then files for bankruptcy, they can potentially violate laws relating to fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and corporate governance. If the developer mismanages the HOA's finances to benefit themselves before the bankruptcy, this is often a core issue.
Fraudulent misrepresentation
If the developer made false promises to timeshare owners while concealing their financial problems, they may be guilty of fraud. This is a common claim in lawsuits against developers who operate fraudulent schemes.

• Deceptive sales practices: Lying to owners about the value of their investment, the ability to resell, or the financial health of the resort can violate state and federal consumer protection laws. For instance, a timeshare developer was sentenced to prison for a resale scam that defrauded thousands of people out of millions of dollars.
• Concealment of financial issues: Failing to disclose that the company was in financial distress before continuing to collect fees or sell new timeshares could constitute fraud.

Breach of fiduciary duty
A fiduciary duty is a legal obligation to act in another party's best interest. By controlling the HOA, the developer's executives have a fiduciary duty to the timeshare owners. Breaches can include:

• Mismanaging HOA funds: Using HOA fees for the developer's business expenses or to pay off the developer's own debts is a significant breach. Owners' assessments are intended for the maintenance and management of the community, not to prop up the parent company.
• Lacking financial oversight: Ignoring poor financial planning or neglecting to fund reserve accounts for future repairs while controlling the HOA violates the duty to protect the association's assets.
• Conflicts of interest: As board members of the HOA, developer-controlled executives have a conflict of interest when prioritizing the developer's financial health over the timeshare owners' interests.

Violations of state laws governing HOAs
State laws dictate the proper governance and operation of an HOA. Developer-controlled boards can easily violate these laws.

• Improper turnover: When the developer retains control of the board and then declares bankruptcy, they may never have properly relinquished control to the owners, which is a violation of the HOA's bylaws and state law.
• Failure to provide records: State laws, such as California's Davis-Stirling Act, often require HOAs to provide financial records and meeting minutes upon request. Developer-controlled boards may ignore these requests.
• Unapproved contracts: A developer-controlled board may enter into contracts with the parent company on unfavorable terms for the HOA, which may be a violation of self-dealing prohibitions.

Bankruptcy law violations
While bankruptcy is a legal process, it can be abused for fraudulent purposes.

• Fraudulent transfers: A developer might illegally transfer assets out of the company to hide them from creditors or enrich themselves before filing for bankruptcy. This is known as a fraudulent conveyance and can be reversed by a bankruptcy court.
• Preferential treatment of creditors: A timeshare developer might unfairly pay off certain creditors (like their own affiliated companies) shortly before filing for bankruptcy, a violation known as a preferential transfer.
• Chapter 7 abuse: A timeshare business filing for a Chapter 7 liquidation without attempting to reorganize, especially if it was a scam, can be investigated by a bankruptcy judge. The filing itself may be a ploy to evade liability, which can lead to the dismissal of the case.

Please note I am not making accusations or allegations that any of this is related to or has occurred during any of these HOAs/Wyndham actions. However, I do know that what we were promised by Fairfield/Wyndham sales and what we ultimately received over that past 35 years did not come to fruition,

I’m on “your side” btw, but just gonna say this so this doesn’t keep going on and on and getting yourself subject to snarky comments and folks arguing with you until the cows come home. You aren’t going to sway anyone one way or the other. If you want to discuss it, good, that’s what these are supposed to be, discussion boards. They aren’t a court of law and, quite frankly, you shouldn’t need to cite case law and US code to give your opinion, on a timeshare discussion board. But I’m trying to save you the time investment, by telling you that you will likely just be subject to more snark and nastiness, and fail at your goal at swaying anyone over, the more the circular debate continues.

Just my two cents, since this is a discussion board that’s supposed to be used to give people’s two cents.

 

[Rolltydr]

Again I cannot find a fact in the above post except personal attack thus it should be removed. Here is substantiation for my previous post.

I thought you were actually making a joke and I laughed. I apologize.

As for your accusation,

...they can potentially violate laws...

I agree. Anyone, any entity, can potentially violate laws. You quoting the law, assuming Google AI is factual since you don't specify what the actual source is, (e.g. U.S. Code, a specific state(s) law, high school text book, etc.), mean Wyndham, or anyone else, has broken the law by their actions in this specific situation. This is akin to saying that I'm going to get into my car this afternoon and drive it. The car will do 100mph, so, I could potentially break the law. However, you have no factual reason to think I will or that I have previously.

 

[rpennisi]

I’m on “your side” btw, but just gonna say this so this doesn’t keep going on and on and getting yourself subject to snarky comments and folks arguing with you until the cows come home. You aren’t going to sway anyone one way or the other. If you want to discuss it, good, that’s what these are supposed to be, discussion boards. They aren’t a court of law and, quite frankly, you shouldn’t need to cite case law and US code to give your opinion, on a timeshare discussion board. But I’m trying to save you the time investment, by telling you that you will likely just be subject to more snark and nastiness, and fail at your goal at swaying anyone over, the more the circular debate continues.

Just my two cents, since this is a discussion board that’s supposed to be used to give people’s two cents.

Amen

 

[schreff]

I’m on “your side” btw, but just gonna say this so this doesn’t keep going on and on and getting yourself subject to snarky comments and folks arguing with you until the cows come home. You aren’t going to sway anyone one way or the other. If you want to discuss it, good, that’s what these are supposed to be, discussion boards. They aren’t a court of law and, quite frankly, you shouldn’t need to cite case law and US code to give your opinion, on a timeshare discussion board. But I’m trying to save you the time investment, by telling you that you will likely just be subject to more snark and nastiness, and fail at your goal at swaying anyone over, the more the circular debate continues.

Just my two cents, since this is a discussion board that’s supposed to be used to give people’s two cents.

I appreciate your comment and your are correct thus I will take your advice. Thank you.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Again I cannot find a fact in the above post except personal attack thus it should be removed. Here is substantiation to my previous post.

OFFICIAL MODERATOR POST

Just to be clear - emoticon usage is a supported forum feature to help or to provide on their own an emotional context given words are often somewhat tone deaf - and therefore will likely never constitute a violation of forum rules in and of themselves. Dislike of any forum reply using a supported forum feature does not generally constitute grounds for removal. The OP can certainly choose to edit their response accordingly, subject to their discretion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/b]

 

[comicbookman]

Agree that Wyndham has the right to protect their financial interest first but the HOAs' BODs has a fiduciary responsibility that trumps this...
Here's Google's Ai
Core fiduciary duties of a timeshare BOD
The responsibility to act without conflict and for the whole ownership is defined by several key legal duties:

• Duty of Loyalty: This is the direct obligation to act in the best interests of the association as a whole, not for any individual owner or the board member's own gain. Board members must give their undivided allegiance to the association when making decisions.
• Duty of Care: Board members are required to handle the association's business with the same level of care and diligence that an "ordinarily prudent person" would use under similar circumstances. This includes being informed and actively participating in meetings.
• Duty of Good Faith: Board members must make decisions with integrity and impartiality, prioritizing the timeshare's collective interests.
• Duty of Obedience: The board must act in accordance with the timeshare's governing documents (e.g., bylaws) and all applicable laws and regulations.

Doesn't it seem strange that 14 or more HOA BODs would act exactly or very close to the same in declaring bankruptcy????
In ending, as I have always said, I believe TUG has a moral responsibility to have those members and non member alike divulge any conflicts that posters have.
VALE

The key here is how you determine the best interests of the association as a whole. That is by votes of the majority. Again, the fact that Wyndham has enough votes to be that majority by itself does not change anything. The timeshare is as stated a collective, it's needs and best interest are decided by the majority. Your Google A1 quotes argue against your position that Wyndham has done something illegal. Immoral, perhaps, that is a valid debate. Illegal, not by a long stretch, unless there are a lot of damning facts we don't know. And yes this is a discussion, not a court of law, but when you disagree with those of us with legal training and experience, you need more than "I don't like what is happening, so Wyndham must be doing something shady". Wyndham rarely deserves the presumption of innocence, but the Law firm they have hired to run this process is very well respected and very good at what they do. Those of us disagreeing with you are deferring to that firm, not Wyndham.